Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[PropheticFate]

Is science having us on? More so than in centuries gone by, yes.

Science cannot explain things. It can, however, explain how many things physically get on with each other. But knowledge of the things themselves always comes down to common-sense everyday experience.

Gravity, and the electron, for example, are not explanations or things. They are oblique references to pages in instruction manuals and to laboratory practices, which tell us how to get things done to our satisfaction. These references are made more real by being tagged to our simple knowledge of fallng objects, and small objects.

There are other myths of science that have no basis in fact, but only arise from an abuse of grammar, broken metaphors, or from anthropomorphisms. These travesties of truth include Time, space-time, mental illness, disorder, the brain, the universe, life, natural selection, evolution, quantum probability, data, information, robot, the mind, autism, aspergers...

The list of factual abuses falling under the banner of "science" is seemingly endless, and is growing day by day into a new, well-organised mythology for idiots.

I wish I could be gentle about this, but I must slander you a little. Whatever and whoever you are, if by chance take a claim to intellectualism, then I beg you to neglect reading this with any judgement or emotionality. If not, then let the emotion take charge and your ignorance reign.

There is so much to discredit about what you said. It almost leaves me overwhelmed as to where I should begin. Simply put, you didn't even prove anything. Its merely an open statement with your opinion: Science is false! Your only proof is the following: "Gravity and the electron..." are not "things". To note your opening claim that science doesn't explain anything, well, neither do you.

I'll begin by clarifying that atoms and gravity are completely different forces (not things). The atoms are elements, they are derivatives of energy, various levels of energy forms. Gravity, is a force, the driving forces of mass.

Now, from a psychological standpoint, to be blunt, lil johnny must have flunked out of highschool science as there is so much bitter resentment towards the "falsity of science" (which, I must emphasize, holds no accredited punctuation for an argument).

Lil Johnny says, that science is a "new, well-organised mythology for idiots". My answer to that is that lil Johnny should have studied history on top of his failed attempt at science. You see, has a history, it dates back preceding the times of "jesus christ".

I understand that this is an open form for the general public to express opinions, should they not at least be expressed with some form of logic and a clear and valid arguement.

I'll stop now for you Johnny ol' boy. My critique shall carry on another day. And remember, keep a clear open mind. You're probably taking a lot in at once, and it may sting at first, but being an intellectual demands an open mind and the ability to understand reason.



Fate has spoken.

[Belinda]

What marks the difference between science and pseudo-science?
From wikipedia:

Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[11] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is "being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition".[12] As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[3][13][14][15][16][17]

Pseudoscience has been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development

[NameRemoved]

In answer to the opening title

Is science having us on?

Science never has us on, but many on these boards claiming to be scientists or scientific do have us on today.

[Mirabiliamania]

"From wikipedia"

I bet you would like to use it but unfortunately it will not hold "ANY" credibility here.

A good example of how Wikipedia is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wikipedia. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.

Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.

[PennyKay]

Q: Is science having us on?

A: No. Science and good scientists will say that science 'is made up of theories that can be observed and are susceptible to experiment'. Any hypothesis' that cannot be observed or experimented with, are not good scientific hypothesis' that will not become theories and that will not stand the test of time. Physics (latin word for 'nature'), is just that, the observation of nature and how it all works.

As a physicist, I refuse to believe in anything that can't be proven. Of course I can speculate and ponder, but I refuse to have a blind faith in things that cannot be proven i.e. if there is a God? This is when science becomes religion.

My job is to observe nature and the mechanics behind it, thus, devising theories that not only explain the universe, but also can revolutionize the way in which we think. Science is a theoretical and a practical subject. Its the subject that took us to the moon, that created the Hubble Space Telescope, that sent the Voyager spacecrafts way out to the outer solar system. It has transformed how we think about the universe to how we think about our lives.

On the other hand, society seems to have a very big problem with reality. Nobody seems to want to believe in the truth anymore. People want to run away from it. A good example of this is the argument in America over whether 'intelligent design' should be taught in science classes. Of course this is an absurd notion. This so called 'intelligent design' theory cannot be observed and cannot be experimented with, thus, it is not a scientific theory and has no place is a science classroom. This is the point when science does start to tell falsities to the youth and starts to 'have them on'.

[Unrealist42]

I think the problem that we have is that scientific investigation for the last hundred years or so has significantly influenced by a particular ideology: materialism, which leads not only to practical problems, but also ethical and moral problems as well.

Suffice it to say that without a proper moral and ethical foundation, any institution - including "mainstream science" can run off its tracks and become so corrupt that it is nothing more than a tool the powerful use to manipulate and control. This can happen in business, religion, politics, and we see it now occurring in science.

So what foundation for morality and ethics do you propose?

If it is religious belief you are proposing then I must point out to you that religion is not a reliable beacon of moral and ethical behavior. Religious belief has been the direct cause of many heinous moral and ethical catastrophes throughout history and that had carried on into the present day. There are many who will reject the notion of religious prescriptions of ethics and morality on this basis.

Motivation for unscrupulous activity has little to do with ethical foundations since these are easily overcome by personal desire regardless of the foundation.

The problem we have today is that many historical systems of ethics and morality have lost their relevance. The guidelines of these systems are no longer in sync with the lives that people live so many people are no longer confident that they can be used as reliable guides.

There is no doubt that we are living in a time of ethical and moral upheaval and that technological advance is a cause of this but the real question is what can we do about it?
Turn back the clock?
It is a few hundred years too late for that.
Return to religion and institute a theocracy?
Only if you are looking for Armageddon.
Find a new paradigm of ethics and morality that makes sense to everyone?
This is the most likely path of success but requires the eventual surrender of those unwilling to recognize that acceptance of a new paradigm is the inevitable requirement for social peace in a changing world.

The world has already changed. it is time for ethics and morality to catch up. The longer the fight to keep old paradigms alive goes on the later that a new paradigm will become adopted and until that happens social strife will just escalate.

This is a war where everyone loses, everyone.

[Philohof]

Stop personifying science. Science is a method, not a person.

Hm, is that true? Is science a method?

Or is science a social system consisting of universities, institutes, scientific books and jounals and so on?

Or is science scientific knowledge?

Or is it all these things put together?

I don´t know. What is science?

[Tardsuicide]

It is sad to say for those of us who didn't study science but unfortunately I don't think one can be a complete thinker/philosopher without some scientific knowledge and training or at least understanding method and how techincal details come to be scientific facts.

Philosophy still pervades (or should) in that it regulates the changes in method that may arise as well as the conclusions which become working facts and theories derived as working truths.

It should also ideally play a role in determining the uses of new forms of scientific knowledge and the direction of new inquiry.

But while science can function in society and become useful w/o philosophy I am not sure the reverse can be said anymore.

Certainly science as a technical club can become a cultic belief system of idiots if misused but philosophers are not necessarily the only ones who can ensure against that.

I guess (based on my limited knowledge of anything including science and philosophy) that philosophy is still most important in the area of social engineering and politics since those mostly have to do with non-observable and non-quantifiable values and cultural powers which are things that exist in our minds not in nature.

but when it comes to fundamental questions in metaphysics and epistemology hasn't science taken over with actual physics and neurosience/cognitive science?

[Whynot]

Is science having us on? More so than in centuries gone by, yes.

Science cannot explain things. It can, however, explain how many things physically get on with each other. But knowledge of the things themselves always comes down to common-sense everyday experience.

Gravity, and the electron, for example, are not explanations or things. They are oblique references to pages in instruction manuals and to laboratory practices, which tell us how to get things done to our satisfaction. These references are made more real by being tagged to our simple knowledge of fallng objects, and small objects.

There are other myths of science that have no basis in fact, but only arise from an abuse of grammar, broken metaphors, or from anthropomorphisms. These travesties of truth include Time, space-time, mental illness, disorder, the brain, the universe, life, natural selection, evolution, quantum probability, data, information, robot, the mind, autism, aspergers...

The list of factual abuses falling under the banner of "science" is seemingly endless, and is growing day by day into a new, well-organised mythology for idiots.

Science, like all other human endeavors, is subject to the same human frailties as any other human institution that has endured over any length of time. Science has splintered into many disciplines and specialties and each appears to be guided by different principles. The social and health sciences appear to be guided by moral considerations about the value of human life and health...but has also become highly commercialized such that one wonders how many diseases could really be resolved if not for the fact that more money is made in thier pharmacological treatment as chronic conditions rather than healable afflictions.

Then there are the physical sciences where experiment and mathematical computer generated modeling often veer off into different directions and the untrained layman is left confused about the sudden proliferation of all these new competing theories. Again, many of these disciplines involve experimentation that is extraordinarily expensive and thus funding becomes a crucial...and possibly...influential stimulus to produce "results" like big bang theology.

That being said, I'd still keep an eye on science as the best and most effective means of grappling with the complexities of a reality where billions of humans are trapped on a planet of limited resources.

[Chasqg]

I think what matters most in this discussion is to remember that Science is a METHOD, and not a dogmatic body of knowledge.
However, there are an awful lot of scientitsts who think that because they call themselves scientists or engineers or doctors, that they must therefore automatically be Materialists as well.
This is irrational.

What's more, Materialism itself is easily shown to be irrational (as it is riddled with paradox) and is supported by no evidence at all.

On top of this we should rememrbe that most of the truly great scientists, people like Copernicus, Faraday, Planck, Mendel, Einstein, Darwin etc were NOT Materialists. And Newton, often called the greatest scientist of all time, was a religious obsessive.

Science and Materialism do NOT have any necessary association.